The lens on the X-Pro1 is a 10-24mm f/4 with similar field of view as the 14-24mm Nikkor and the camera bodies have the same resolution. My purpose in posting the comparison is that the two kits will offer very similar results while the weight will be considerably less with the Fuji kit. I know because I own them both and rarely use the D4/14mm kit unless I need real speed. I also own the Df which I find much handier than the D4, but still much bigger sand heavier than the Fuji. I agree with the OP while using different examples which offer very similar results

The lens on the X-Pro1 is a 10-24mm f/4 with similar field of view as the 14-24mm Nikkor and the camera bodies have the same resolution. My purpose in posting the comparison is that the two kits will offer very similar results while the weight will be considerably less with the Fuji kit. I know because I own them both and rarely use the D4/14mm kit unless I need real speed. I also own the Df which I find much handier than the D4, but still much bigger sand heavier than the Fuji. I agree with the OP while using different examples which offer very similar results

I understand that and don't have a problem with the comparison that you chose for yourself, although there are still other lenses that would have been better, more relevant choices than the 14-24mm Nikkor. Based on what the OP wrote and the lens that he chose for the X-T1, his comparisons were nothing like yours. I mean, he could have used the same Df with the same 24-70 f/2.8 lens and compared it with Fuji's tiny XF1 that has a focal length range similar to the 16-50mm kit lens. I have a 24-70mm lens and the XF1 and I can also carry it in my hand or in a shirt pocket all day long while I wouldn't want to carry the DSLR with the 24-70mm lens for extended periods. But comparing the tiny P&S with the much larger DSLR+lens would be a pointless comparison.

Who do you know that wouldn't understand this unless they know practically nothing about photography? This thread was only the OP's way of making a misleading comparison to get across him much he likes his X-T1, I think. Beyond that it doesn't tell anyone what they don't already know or should know.

With good high ISO and OIS in the mix to remove the need of larger apertures, I think it's arguable that the division that counts is between small DOF shooters and non-small-DOF shooters before making any generalisations. The issue has to be seen in the light of the two different camps.

For one group, those who need small-DOF/blur, there really isn't such a size/weight difference to get like for like.

But arguably a lot of shooters don't really care for or need small DOF, and for them mirrorless can be a significant size/weight saving.

One can't generalise in a way that covers both camps.

The same can be said for FF vs APS-C. A lot of people just don't need the resolution.

Without wanting to intervene in this argument, there was a running theme on the M43s forums of people explaining how they felt liberated by the shift from, say, a D700 and nikon's trinity of F2.8 zooms to an E-M5 with small primes mounted. It just isn't a fair comparison, hence why I suggested different lenses to make the comparison fairer. I think the 35mm vs 50mm comparison is a good one. Another alternative would be the Fujifilm 23 F1.4 against the new Nikon 35mm F1.8G.

The first thing I say to people when they say they want to switch bodies is "have you tried switching lenses?"

My point is it is noticeably bigger than the Fuji so if it was used in the comparison photo it would still prove the OP's point that the Df with the appropraite lens will be significantly bigger and heavier than the X-T1 with nearest equivalent lens (and it will be more expensive). If you must have FF the Df is a good choice, but if the bulk is putting you off and you don't need FF the X-T1 is a better choice.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that mirrorless cameras and their lenses are often smaller than their DSLR counterparts. It's not as acceptable to go farther than that by stacking the deck against the DSLR by giving it a very large, fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lens that's not at all comparable, one that's twice the size of a good, existing kit lens that would be used the same way by most DSLR owners as a decent walkabout lens.

I've agreed to use your suggestion and said the point is still clear. What's the problem?

.

I believe the OP made a good point, regardless of the fact that the lenses he chose to illustrate it were not really like for like. Using the Fuji 18~55 and Nikon 24~85 VR would still have made this point very well.

Good point or not, there's further proof that the OP was trying to be deceptive. You're right, he should have used the 18-55mm kit lens but not only did he use a much larger lens for the DSLR than was necessary, he also didn't use the 18-55mm kit lens that's shipped with the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2. He tried to make the difference appear even greater than it should be by using the much smaller and lighter 16-50mm plastic kit lens that ships with the X-A1, not with the X-T1.

His point is still valid and clear, as I've said. You seem to be taking it personally!

That's odd, I thought the same about you, but you're the one going farther, saying that you think that I have a problem, which shows that it's you that seems to be taking it personally enough to make personal accusations. So as far as I'm concerned it doesn't deserve to go any further between us unless you decide to make a last reply.

I don't need to take it personally. I still own a Nikon FF kit as well as the Fuji kit and an Olympus OMD kit. I have no reason to regret selling one in favour of another because I own them all. I know from experience that the Nikon gear is heavier than I want to carry now that smaller formats have reached a certain quality. I could have bought smaller lenses but having handled both cameras on the same day it was clear to me the Fuji offered the weight and size advantage I was after. Like I said, my Nikon gear is still there if I want to make use of it. Generally speaking I don't. No big deal.

Aren't we getting tired of these "It's easier to carry around so it must be better, plus I am not sophisticated enough to see a difference in image quality due to sensor size" threads?

Fact is, each system has its own advantages and disadvantages and these threads seem to indicate that it has to be a choice of one over the other. It doesn't have to be that way at all.

It does if you can only afford one good camera.

If you have the budget of the people posting in DPR talking about having $50,000 worth of gear ("I have two 5DIII's and a 1DxIII with 15 L lenses, and three X-T1's with all the lenses available to this point, and an OMD-E1 and two E5's and thus and such lenses"), it makes much less difference, you have choices for different uses.

Personally, I am in the first group. And dSLRs suck where mirrorless are awesome, and vice versa. I am looking forward to the day that my needs (wants?) can be met by a mirrorless system, with the trade-offs below my tipping point between the systems. If I win the lottery, I will have both, and won't much agonize over 'which is better', that is, where my satisfaction/dissatisfaction balance is best met. Until then, I will keep hoping some mirrorless system comes along that does it for me as a single system.

This is a more appropriate comparison (at least as far as the lens is concerned). 10-24mm f/4 vs 14-24mm f/2.8 on the X-Pro1 and Nikon D4

I haven't taken the X-T1 plunge yet.

Oh, I don't know about that. The OP was trying to make a point about the advantage of switching from a large DSLR to a smaller mirrorless camera. You replaced a pretty small DSLR (Df) with a much larger and heavier DSLR (the D4), and also replaced the larger X-T1 with the (slightly?) smaller X-Pro 1. I'm not as critical about the body choices because you're using probably using what you have for the photos. But still, there's a mismatch. A photographer using Nikon's 14-24mm lens is much less likely to use it with a 16mp D4 or D4 than (as I earlier said) with a higher resolution D3x or D800.

And even those bodies and lenses aren't really the most appropriate for comparisons because when the OP writes "what would you want to lug around all day around your neck" that probably indicates a general purpose, walkaround lens like the small, plastic 16-50mm kit he used for the comparison, not a heavy, expensive "pro" lens that has a focal length range much wider than almost anyone would consider for a walkaround lens. 14-24mm on a D4/Df is like a 9.2-15.8mm lens on a Fuji X-mount body, and that's an extreme wide angle special purpose lens. Yes, it's not what the OP would want to lug around all day, but it's also not a lens that he or most people would ever consider lugging around all day unless they're really dedicate landscape or architectural photographers, and if that's the case they'd never, ever consider replacing it with a 16-50mm kit lens on any Fuji body even if it was shrunk to the size and weight of a compact P&S camera.

Not to mention the fact that the 14-24, being a 2,8 lens, isn't only a stop faster, on its native sensor, it gives an image the equivalent to an APS-C lens at f2. An APS-C constant f2 lens would be massive, possibly larger than the 14-24.

Nikon don't make an ultrawide that compares. The 16-35 is constant f/4, but on its native sensor, it gives an image, again, like an f/2,8 would. Nikon would have to make an ultrawide f/5,6 to make it directly comparable. But they never will.

So, the Fujifilm has the advantage, but only because Nikon wouldn't make such a slow lens for FF.

Also, the X-T1 is slightly smaller than the X-Pro 1 is. Is is less long in the X axis and not quite as tall at the shoulders. Only the hump sticks above the X-pro 1.

I first held and played with the DF about 2 weeks ago and frankly was unimpressed. I admit it has the best medium res FF sensor made today but I found the camera very fiddly to work with. I was also surprised to feel a sponginess to the dials on top as if the shafts they rotate on aren't substantial enough. Not at all like the feel of the old Nikon and Canon film camera from the 70's and 80's. My old F1 and F1n ($380 new back then) could be used to pound nails.

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

No, it's larger compared to the smallest SLRs one could get back in the day such as the FE/FM/OM Models. Since those were dense for their size and were still thick at the mirrorbox, there's actually little practical difference in size and weight. If I compare the Df to my F6 the F6 is slightly thinner, but otherwise bigger. The F5 was bigger again than the F6.

I'm just left scratching my head at the idea that the Df is a big camera. It is a big camera vs a sony RX100. It's not that different to either an xt1 or an A7. It certainly isn't that different in size to an xpro1.

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

No, it's larger compared to the smallest SLRs one could get back in the day such as the FE/FM/OM Models. Since those were dense for their size and were still thick at the mirrorbox, there's actually little practical difference in size and weight. If I compare the Df to my F6 the F6 is slightly thinner, but otherwise bigger. The F5 was bigger again than the F6.

I'm just left scratching my head at the idea that the Df is a big camera. It is a big camera vs a sony RX100. It's not that different to either an xt1 or an A7. It certainly isn't that different in size to an xpro1.

Starting with the F4, Nikon made its SLRs huge. The Df isn't a sports camera, nor is it a military camera. Even the F2 and F3 were much smaller than the F6 and F4 and F5. The Df, by mimicking an older Nikon SLR at first glance, is at an unfair advantage because none of them were as large as it. Modern Nikon SLRs from the F4 on were massive, but they were the professional, all-automatic, made to be massive professional cameras in par with today's D3/4. The consumer models, which the Df mimics, are all much smaller. Some of them were the size of small rangefinder cameras. Unless you are out to compare the Df with professional sports cameras of their day, the Df - which isn't a professional sports cameras - is large.